London Capital and Finance

Alexland

eskbanker wrote: »

However, expecting regulators to be able to control, or even monitor, what's being published by unregulated scammers is somewhat ambitious! There is an argument (as seen on the blog that jimjames has linked to) that content providers such as Facebook should make more strenuous efforts to weed out scams but even if they went down that route it would only ever be reactive (in response to sufficient complaints) rather than proactively managing content before publication.

Fundamentally the problem is that the penalty for producing or publishing scams is so much lower that the opportunity size for scam or advertising revenue. For example if the penalty was chopping off Mark Zuckerberg's fingers then Facebook scam ads would probably stop overnight.

Alex

Sledger

Bail in I miss read that link on your post 661 panicked, and got all my money out of Ratesetters and alerted my family I recommended to do the same. After I withdrew it all and got a few hundred quid penalty my daughter told me it was a dated 2017. How can one do Due Diligence on a company before investing especially these on line P2P companies. Your were flagging up LCF way back and some posters slogged you. Now after the FCA intervention and what has been unravelled on this site since the due diligence is " If I knew then what I know now". After the Horse has bolted from the "Old Coach House " in Tonbridge That said, I was uneasy with LCF 18 months back and in hindsight should have got a solicitor involved back then but only had rubber bullets not the scud missile now available which is too late to launch. Maybe I have to put it all with "Ernie" but my 5 pound 1969 no win bonds are still worth 5 pounds .which was a weeks wages back then. The only saving grace I have is my time is limited so wont have to look too far back unless I break the old age record, .

bail-in

Sledger, any corporate solicitor would advise within minutes, although they may spin the consultation out, to the effect of not touching LCF and it's like with a bargepole.

AnotherJoe

Sledger wrote: »

Reapers post 686 Not trying to go off track but making the comment on false advertising as in LCF case

this morning when I logged on amongst all the news flashes this one on Dragons den re bitcon article looked really convining but its a scam so why is it not filtered out by some regulatory body. before it pops up as a news flash

Below are two of many links but I type in Dragons Den Bitcom SCAM where these results take second place. Surely my news plash pop up should state Beware Dragons Den bitcom scam not the other way around.

links removed - please don't replicate scam links in posts !! .

Get an adblocker on your browser, block pop ups, and steer clear of websites that host these scam adverts. Weeding out scams coudl be done better but will never be 100% and there are too many routes for them anyway, so you need to take responsibility yourself.

coyrls

Sledger wrote: »

this morning when I logged on amongst all the news flashes

What are you logging on to and how are you getting news flashes? You shouldn't get "news flashes" when you log on to Windows (or any other OS), nor when you start up your Web browser. If you are, then it sounds like either your OS or your browser has been compromised.

jimjames

Sledger wrote: »

How can one do Due Diligence on a company before investing especially these on line P2P companies.

Easy way is to only use regulated FSCS protected companies. If you're looking at better returns than cash then look at S&S ISAs investing in stock market funds. They won't give the fluff of having safe, guaranteed investments like LCF but they are far less risky and risk of losing all your money is close to zero.

Sledger

Now that LCF have passed it over to GST can any body throw light on the reasoning, purpose and implication of having a Maltese address on Companies House assumable done by {text removed by MSE Forum Team}.? As I see it its just a post drop off address like so many of the other Companies formed by the clan so what's the catch if any?. Still unclear as how Companies House show it being both UK and Maltese address and the defence depends which Company House link used.

System

If found guilty, would anyone ever go to prison for any of this? And if so who, the people running the bonds or the people selling them?

jimjames

Sledger wrote: »

Now that LCF have passed it over to GST can any body throw light on the reasoning, purpose and implication of having a Maltese address on Companies House assumable done by {text removed by MSE Forum Team}.? As I see it its just a post drop off address like so many of the other Companies formed by the clan so what's the catch if any?. Still unclear as how Companies House show it being both UK and Maltese address and the defence depends which Company House link used.

Sledger, it's not just a Maltese address. Global Security Trustees Ltd is owned by a company based in Malta, Global Security Trustees Ltd is still registered to a UK address despite being owned by a company elsewhere.

There isn't a contradiction, the registered address of a company is separate to the ownership. In this instance Global Security Trustees Ltd is owned by another company when it had previously been owned by a person.

However Global Security Trustees Ltd has no staff and only £100 in the bank. How is it going to manage £200 million of assets and 14,000 bondholder accounts?

{text_removed_by_MSE_Forum_Team} wrote:

If found guilty, would anyone ever go to prison for any of this? And if so who, the people running the bonds or the people selling them?

So far there is no evidence of illegal activity. This was an unregulated bond that had the potential for losing 100% of your money in various situations. Losing money was not dependent on fraud taking place, it could happen in the normal run of business.
There may be something around the way people were sold it as a low risk savings product and the way high net worth questions were bypassed but that would be part of the selling not the running of the company.

System

jimjames wrote: »

Sledger, it's not just a Maltese address. Global Security Trustees Ltd is owned by a company based in Malta, Global Security Trustees Ltd is still registered to a UK address despite being owned by a company elsewhere.

There isn't a contradiction, the registered address of a company is separate to the ownership. In this instance Global Security Trustees Ltd is owned by another company when it had previously been owned by a person.

However Global Security Trustees Ltd has no staff and only £100 in the bank. How is it going to manage £200 million of assets and 14,000 bondholder accounts?



So far there is no evidence of illegal activity. This was an unregulated bond that had the potential for losing 100% of your money in various situations. Losing money was not dependent on fraud taking place, it could happen in the normal run of business.
There may be something around the way people were sold it as a low risk savings product and the way high net worth questions were bypassed but that would be part of the selling not the running of the company.

Thanks for the reply. So what happens then (if yiu happen to know) if a company verbally tells you one thing, but the paperwork says something different. Is it down to the consumer to read the paperwork so it doesnt contradict? To put it in a regulated world..if i purchased a savings policy on the understanding it couldnt go down in value, but the letter the adviser sends says it can...iand i dont read the letter as its 20 pages long , would i have any come back, so to speak.